pic

Imagine a country where forestry generates 10% of the industrial production.

With any likelihood this country cared for all of their trees for more than a century, to ensure that this valuable resource remained just that. Re-planting more than what was harvested became not only legislative, but also a modus operandi. A way-of-life that produced such desirable goods as baby diapers, toilet tissue, carton board, liquid packing, wooden floors, posh furniture, surgical cloth, and even smart clothes. The net export value of this was not bad at all.

Over time, it is not unlikely that the awareness rose that this vast resource (more than 55% of the land) also spun off other benefits of a greater good. Like helping the Earth to breathe. Balancing out CO emissions. And helping to stop climate change.

Many of the inhabitants of this country used this production resource as their own recreational arena; skiing, hiking, fishing, biking, scouting, picking mushrooms, harvesting berries, hunting game, birdwatching and much more.

However, another fraction of the inhabitants saw the contrary. They only envisioned large corporations intruding in nature, threatening life-on-earth. And claimed that this industry in fact endangered species and worsened climate change.

To the amazement of many, the latter group got the upper hand. And started to limit the use of the forests. More and more land was set aside as national trusts, deemed to perpetual unproductiveness. Facing rapid decay, these vast forest areas would neither contribute to grow GDP nor lower CO. And definitely not help push the boundaries of new, smart materials technology.

What to do? Who is right? What is wrong? How to turn things right?

We don’t know yet. But we can find out.

Because the only thing we do is to help companies around the world create value by transforming data and knowledge into strategic advice and efficient communication.

Visit www.opticomgroup.se for more information.

Email Linkedin Facebook Twitter
Download PDF